Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by an assessee under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act against an order, dated 8-1-2004, passed by CESTAT (for short called Tribunal ). ( 2. ) IT may be taken note of at the outset, that appellant who was respondent in appeal out of which this appeal arises was ex parte before the Tribunal. In other words, the appellant despite service of the appeal remained ex parte and did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is only when the impugned order went against the appellant; this appeal is filed by the appellant (who as observed supra was the respondent before Tribunal ). ( 3. ) ON 22-8-1997, the sleuths of Central Excise Department raided the factory premises of appellant. On physical verification of the stocks in relation to finished goods and inputs, a shortage of finished goods (Iron and non alloy steel wires) of the value of Rs. 10,18,874/involving payment of Excise Duty (Rs. 1,57,330/-) and inputs weighing 630. 440 Kg of Zinc involving payment of excise duty of Rs. 6,856/- was detected. This was admitted by Mr. Madanlal Katearia, Director of appellant-company. He, therefore, requested that time be given to pay the duty as detected. ( 4. ) EVEN then show cause was issued. Appellant then denied the evasion. The assessing officer determined the duty. It was set aside by Commissioner of Appeal. By impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the order of Commissioner of Appeal and restored that of assessing officer, giving rise to filing of this appeal by an assessee. ( 5. ) HEARD Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for appellant. ( 6. ) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the appellant was mainly one. According to learned counsel, once the appellant i. e. an assessee detracted from his admission which he had initially made before the authorities, then he had to be afforded an opportunity to prove that the said admission was made under duress. I find no substance in this submission. In the first place it being a question of fact and not raised in appeal before the Tribunal, this Court will not permit such stand to be taken in this appeal. I find no substance in this submission. In the first place it being a question of fact and not raised in appeal before the Tribunal, this Court will not permit such stand to be taken in this appeal. Secondly, appellant being a literate and professional businessman, it was inconceivable to even conclude that anybody will put any pressure upon such person to admit the shortage noticed. Thirdly, it seems to be a clear case where appellant having clearly caught in shortage, they had no answer to shortage found and hence, had to admit the same. In other words, since there was no possible reply to shortage detected and hence, appellant fairly admitted the shortage and offered to pay the duty on the shortage so noticed. ( 7. ) THE retracting of admission at a later stage was an after thought having no basis for it. It was only with a view to avoid and linger on the proceedings. The appellant in reply to show cause failed to substantiate that there was no shortage of material as alleged or that if there was then it had some explanation at their instance to offer. The appellant simply took a plea that he having retracted from the admission, an opportunity to cross-examine the sleuths of flying squad should have been afforded to them. We find no merit in this submission both on facts and in law. ( 8. ) IN our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly dealt with the factual and legal issue. It has rightly relied upon the admission made by appellant (its director) for holding that shortage of material did exist in the factory and accordingly, upheld the demand for duty and penalty. ( 9. ) WE, thus, do not find any issue of law much less substantial question of law that can be said to arise in appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed in limine.